Top related persons:
Top related locs:
Top related orgs:

Search resuls for: "Myra Brown"


10 mentions found


WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S Supreme Court on Friday was set to rule on the legality of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt - a move intended to benefit up to 43 million Americans and fulfill a campaign promise. Both Biden, a Democrat, and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump relied upon the HEROES Act beginning in 2020 to repeatedly pause student loan payments and halt interest from accruing to alleviate financial strain on student loan borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the arguments, a Justice Department lawyer portrayed the debt relief as a benefits program rather than an assertion of regulatory power not authorized by Congress. Circuit Court of Appeals found that at least one of the states, Missouri, had proper standing. Some 53% of Americans said they support Biden's debt relief, with 45% opposed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from March, with respondents dividing sharply along partisan lines with Democrats broadly supportive and Republicans generally opposed.
Persons: Joe Biden's, Biden, Biden's, Pell, Donald Trump, Myra Brown, Alexander Taylor, John Kruzel, Will Dunham Organizations: U.S Supreme, Higher Education, Act, Democrat, Republican, Justice Department, Congress, Circuit, Appeals, Biden, Reuters, Thomson Locations: Arkansas , Iowa , Kansas , Missouri , Nebraska, South Carolina, U.S, Missouri, Louis, Texas, New Orleans
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday on Biden's student-loan relief plan. Supporters say the relief is lawful, while opponents say Biden's policy is unconstitutional. The states claim that MOHELA will lose revenue from servicing loans because of Biden's relief. Concerning the constitutionality of Biden's plan, advocates on both sides say they feel confident their respective views will prevail at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decisions by June.
[1/2] U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks about the student loan forgiveness program from an auditorium on the White House campus in Washington, U.S., October 17, 2022. The program fulfilled Biden's 2020 campaign promise to cancel a portion of the nation's $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt but was criticized by Republicans and others as an overreach of his authority. Biden's administration has said the plan is authorized under a 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, that allows student loan debt relief during wartime or national emergencies. Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, repeatedly paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing, relying upon the HEROES Act. Missouri-based U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey found the states - Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina lacked the legal standing to sue.
The Supreme Court will hear two challenges to Biden's student-debt-relief plan on Tuesday. But the Biden administration has defended its legal authority and expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will uphold the plan. Prominent figures in the legal and political worlds have weighed in on the two high-profile Supreme Court cases in dozens of briefs filed to the Supreme Court. More than 170 Republican members of Congress have argued against Biden's relief, along with 17 Republican-led states, the US Chamber of Commerce, and over a dozen conservative-leaning advocacy groups. Millions of student-loan borrowers' financial futures hang in the balance.
The law is a product of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and an earlier version of it provided relief to federal student loan borrowers impacted by the attacks. However, the states counter that the Heroes Act allows the Education secretary only to modify the federal student loan system to keep certain borrowers from being in a worse-off position with their loans because of a national emergency. In other words, higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz said, the states are asserting that Biden is using Covid as an excuse to pass his plan. The states also argue that Biden's plan would cause financial harm to their states, including a loss of profits for the companies that service federal student loans. The attorneys also denied the claim that the Biden administration was overstepping its authority, laying out the White House's argument that it is acting within the law under the Heroes Act of 2003.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a second bid to revive President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, which will be heard in February alongside a case the justices have already agreed to hear. In both the cases, lower courts blocked the plan, meaning the Supreme Court will have the final say on whether it ever goes into effect. The case the court said Monday that it would take up involves two holders of student loan debt, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who claimed the administration had failed to follow the correct procedure in announcing the plan. A federal judge in Texas invalided it nationwide, prompting the administration to turn to the Supreme Court. In the other case, the court on Dec. 1 said it would hear an administration appeal involving a challenge brought by six states.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a second challenge to President Joe Biden's student-debt relief. The challenge was brought by two student-loan borrowers who didn't qualify for the full amount of relief. The department took matters to the Supreme Court, asking it to make the final ruling on the legality of the debt relief. The Supreme Court earlier this month already agreed to take up a separate challenge brought by six Republican-led states that argued the loan forgiveness would hurt their states' tax revenues. The Supreme Court is expected hand down decisions in both cases by next June.
Trump-appointed Judge Mark Pittman struck down Biden's debt relief in Texas last week. They claimed that enacting broad student-loan forgiveness is an overreach of the authority and should require Congressional approval, while Biden has maintained one-time student-loan forgiveness is well within the administration's legal authority. The plaintiffs' standing to sueBoth of the plaintiffs who brought the Texas lawsuit hold student loans. The first plaintiff, Myra Brown, sued because her loans are commercially-held and therefore ineligible for Biden's debt relief, which requires the borrower to owe their debt directly to the federal government. Pittman said that Biden's Justice Department argument that the plaintiffs' standing does not exist is "untrue."
A federal judge in Texas struck down Biden's student-loan forgiveness on Thursday. It's in response to a lawsuit filed by two student-loan borrowers who didn't qualify for the relief. This is the most serious legal setback to Biden's debt relief so far. This was in response to a lawsuit filed by two student-loan borrowers, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, represented by conservative group the Job Creators Network, who sued because they were left out of debt relief. "Today, a federal judge conspired with right-wing politicians and corrupt corporations to block life-changing student debt relief for tens of millions of families," executive director of advocacy group Student Borrower Protection Center Mike Pierce said in a statement.
We took over four school boards.”“Eleven seats on school boards, took over four!” Bannon shouted as a crowd of CPAC attendees erupted in applause. In the neighboring city of Southlake, Patriot Mobile donated framed posters that read “In God We Trust” to the Carroll Independent School District during a special presentation before the school board. Nearly 200 people signed up to speak during public comments before the board vote at the school board meeting in Grapevine, Texas. Patriot Mobile paid Vanguard Field Strategies nearly $150,000 to run get-out-the-vote canvassing operations across the four school districts, according to financial disclosures. “This is the most extreme board policy that we have seen related to classroom censorship,” Huddleston said.
Total: 10